Physicians Choosing Death for Their Patients
The Stories of Sheila Annette Lewis, Garnet Harper, and Many Others
I carry a very heavy heart these days.
Let me introduce you to Ms. Sheila Annette Lewis, a mother of four and grandmother of two, who died on August 24, 2023; she was 58 years old…
…and Mr. Garnet Harper, a husband and father of five young children, who died on May 22, 2023; he was 35 years old…
Both were objectively determined by medical professionals to be ideal candidates for life-saving transplants. Both were denied these life-saving surgeries because they did not get COVID-19 shots. In both cases, these individuals made informed personal decisions to avoid these shots. They conducted risk-benefit analyses and concluded that the known and ever-emerging risks outweighed potential benefits.
The COVID-19 shots should never have been made a requirement for anyone, let alone to receive a transplant. There are so many scientific and ethical reasons for this that I could write many pages about it. Suffice it to say that near the top of the list is the fact that a vaccine requires an intact immune system to both induce and maintain protection against a pathogen. But people undergoing major transplant surgeries have their immune systems potently and chronically suppressed to try to prevent them from rejecting their new organs!
Ms. Lewis even had evidence of robust naturally acquired immunity against SARS-CoV-2, which was proven a long time ago to be superior in every way, shape and form to the immune responses induced by the COVID-19 shots!
And there was a sick irony in Mr. Harper’s situation. He was deemed by our medical establishment to be unfit to receive an organ from someone else, even the kidneys offered by his own brothers! However, upon his death, his wife was cruelly asked to consent to donating her husband’s organs to others. It’s enough to make one vomit.
In both cases, it was argued that the organs had a greater chance of being ‘wasted’ if put into ‘unvaccinated’ individuals because they might die from COVID-19 sooner than a ‘vaccinated’ recipient. But, ever-emerging data suggest that those who have received COVID-19 shots, especially many doses, are at least as likely to be hospitalized and die, and are almost certainly more susceptible to getting diagnosed with COVID-19.
I am not going to belabor the science. But, as an expert vaccinologist I can assure you that the weight of the scientific evidence supported Sheila and Garnet having good reason to question the effectiveness and safety of the COVID-19 shots. Nobody subjected to these shots were ever entitled to fully informed consent. We know that many concerning data, or lack thereof, were revealed after the fact through freedom of information requests and other means.
One might even go so far as to contend that Ms. Lewis and Mr. Harper may have been murdered. Although it may sound extreme, this is based on a search of “murder, definition” on the search engine ‘Duck Duck Go’, which yielded…
“The killing of another person […] with recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
Unfortunately, there are many other cases like these ones that have occurred around the world. They must stop. The science supports stopping this insanity and I would think that basic ethical principles and constitutional rights would add even greater weight.
I read a great article about a couple of prominent Canadian politicians decrying these medical malpractices as a ‘failure of medical ethics’; one of these individuals could be Canada’s next prime minister.
Very recently, a military tribunal deemed Canada’s COVID-19 ‘vaccine’ mandate to be unconstitutional. Specifically, they cited a breach of two aspects of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is refreshing to see after witnessing this venerated document being trampled by all levels of governments and courts for the past several years.
There was also a recent decision in the Superior Court of Quebec that rejected the idea that employees who lost their jobs “were not forced to be vaccinated”. Although the court accepted that there was a theoretical choice about whether to accept the vaccine, they very reasonably concluded that "the consequences of a refusal are such that this choice is not really a choice". This is so important. In Canada, court cases related to COVID-19 have been repeatedly dismissed due to claims that people were presented with a ‘choice’ when it came to COVID-19 mandates. So, constitutional law was not considered relevant. But, the Superior Court of Quebec finally nailed it. It is not about providing a ‘theoretical choice’. It is about providing people with REASONABLE choices. Forcing someone to choose between an experimental medical procedure, for which the safety and effectiveness are debatable, and their livelihood does not constitute a reasonable choice.
In the cases of Ms. Sheila Annette Lewis and Mr. Garnet Harper and many others, the ‘choice’ they were offered was the COVID-19 shot or death. There was not anything reasonable about this.
These cases were overseen by teams of physicians. These are people who presumably began their careers with an intent to heal in a nondiscriminatory way. Now these physicians seem content to take their medical doctorate-level understanding of vaccinology, which is overly superficial, and use it to recklessly implement nonsensical ‘vaccination’ requirements that place illogical preferential value on a subset of lives. All while reasonable and concerned experts are censored.
Over the past couple of years, Canadians were encouraged to develop and nurture unscientific fears and hatred directed towards the so-called ‘[COVID-19] unvaxxed’. This was modeled and propagated by prime minister Justin Trudeau and was then enthusiastically embraced by a shocking number of people. It has created a divided Canada. It also ultimately led to the deaths of Ms. Sheila Annette Lewis and Mr. Garnet Harper.
The concept of medical ethics in Canada is badly broken.
To the families and friends of Sheila and Garnet, I offer my sincere condolences. So do my family members, friends, and colleagues that I have talked to about this. Your loved ones made sound, science-backed ethical choices that should have been respected by their attending physicians and Canadian courts. May their strength and courage be the foundation upon which medical ethics get restored in Canada.
When the heart foundation is heartless
And the courts are all unjust
When the leaders of the free world enslave us
And the hospitals crumble to dust
We're doing this for your benefit
Screams both irony and deceit
Those who fail to learn from history
Are doomed to see it repeat
As a close friend of Sheila’s privy to the facts right until she passed early in the morning on Aug 24th, I’d like to add a few additional facts.
1. Dr Bridle is quite correct; Sheila was denied, for several crucial years, a life saving transplant, by both doctors and judges; on the doctors’ parts because they alleged C19 vaccines would extend her life and that of the donor organ should she contract it post transplant, and on the judges’ parts because they either refused to consider the science which Sheila ‘s lawyers presented (Court of Appeal) or because they ruled with the doctors on their “science”( Judge Belzil, lower court). The courts at both levels ruled that Sheila had no Constitutional right to a transplant.
2. Sheila suspected she had had Covid at least once and asked her doctors several times for a Covid antibody test. They repeatedly refused to test her for C19 antibodies. None of the judges ruled that the doctors must provide her an antibody test, despite that judge Paul Belzil, in his ruling against Sheila, actually mentioned that many vaccines are required of transplant recipients, including Varicella Zoster, **except that if the patient has already had chickenpox**.
3. Sheila paid privately to have her antibodies to C19 qualified and quantified. She was deemed to have a higher level of antibodies than many vaccinated people thanks to having had C19 TWICE. Regardless, her doctors continued to refuse to transplant her.
4. Sheila sued her doctors for malpractice and negligence when the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear her appeal of the lower court decisions. Scientific facts had to be considered in the suit. A “confidential settlement” was reached. Sheila died awaiting a transplant. (Confidentiality was requested by the doctors, not Sheila. Confidentiality protecting the names of Sheila’s doctors their hospital her organ and the terms of the settlement remain despite her death. They apply to everyone. Anyone can be brought before the court and charged with a breach should we disclose such facts)
5. It takes about 2 years to find a donor match for someone Sheila’s size, and with her blood type and with an HLA antigen match. According to a prominent retired transplant surgeon, this wait can be reduced by accepting a less than perfectly matched organ and then altering to organ to fit, and/or offering plasmapheresis to address blood / antigen mismatches. In addition, in later stage of disease when blood oxygenation becomes threatened, life can be extended by offering ECMO to patients requiring the organ Sheila needed, while the search for a donor ensues. None of these options were offered to Sheila at any point. She entered hospital in the late stages of her disease.
6. It is my opinion that the doctors and courts never wanted to save Sheila’s life. In fact it is my opinion they wanted not to.
7. The courts have been “ in on” the government’s C19 policy setting from the beginning. Chief Justice Wagner of the Supreme Court sat on a committee with former Minister of Justice Lametti for several years, as did many Provincial court judges. The judicial branch is supposed to be independent of the legislative branch. Without an independent court how we can we expect any unbiased ruling pertaining to mandates and other C19 crimes ? https://www.westernstandard.news/news/canada-s-top-judge-and-federal-justice-minister-co-chaired-covid-committee-for-years/article_6ff68fc8-060f-11ee-8180-3fe065d571de.html
8. The names of the judges and Justices who ruled against Sheila are not confidential.